In a Gallup poll released June 19, only
29 percent of the public said it has "a great deal/quite
a lot" of confidence in Congress. Although this is a higher
figure than the 18 percent approval rating Congress earned in
the early 90s, its substantially lower than the 42 percent Congress
enjoyed when Gallup began this annual poll 30 years ago.1

It's no wonder. Fueled at times by public
demand but at least as often by crass political concerns and
special interests, Congress over the years has let the federal
government grow to huge, some would say unmanageable, proportions.

Our federal government literally loses
track of billions of dollars in cash and equipment, designs programs
that can't possibly work, spends money on redundancies (public
radio and television in the Internet Age) while underfunding
critical programs (port and border security) and adds new programs
at the drop of a hat.

Consider recent headlines:

* Fueled by political considerations,
Congress appears poised to approve a Medicare prescription drug
benefit that The Heritage Foundation, normally an ally of those
behind the proposal, calls an "impending disaster for all
Americans."2 The plan is a disaster not because our best
minds lack the ability to design a financially-sound comprehensive
health insurance program for seniors, but because, after years
of dawdling, Congress has decided to rush the job. This fast-tracked
proposal will not cost less than $400 billion over ten years
(likely much more). It will end much of the employer-based prescription
drug coverage 34 percent of all seniors now enjoy.3
As it is not means-tested, it will cause poor Americans to subsidize
rich Americans. Heritage says the proposal will result in "soaring
costs that can and will be controlled only through price controls
and a direct or indirect rationing of drugs."4
As its actual price tag is unknown but astronomical, it inevitably
will lurch Medicare into insolvency years ahead of predictions.
Yet, the Senate Finance Committee approved the proposal only
48 hours after its major provisions were unveiled, allowing no
time for serious debate. The bill may be law within a month.

* Then there is the Pentagon, specifically
the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Building the ship
- which is designed to maneuver in shallow waters near shorelines
- is a worthy endeavor, but one wonders if the Pentagon's proverbial
right hand knows what its left is doing. The U.S. Navy has awarded
a $15 million contract to a defense contractor to evaluate the
performance of composite materials in naval vessels.5
Yet, this same contractor, Northrop Grumman, is simultaneously
seeking a contract to build the LCS from composite material.
For the sake of national security, let alone the up to $15 billion
taxpayer dollars the ship may cost,6 one
hopes the Navy is more than a little aware of the potential conflict
of interest. However, with 700,000 civilian employees7
and a mission encompassing homeland security, intelligence operations,
peacekeeping missions, running Afghanistan and Iraq and its traditional
military role, it is almost impossible for even the most skillful
people to run the Pentagon without a few things falling through
the cracks.

* There's also the Bush Administration,
Iraq and WMD. Though most Bush critics expose their thinly-veiled
hope that the President lied about WMD, the issue points to a
more bi-partisan problem: America's intelligence services have
had glaring weaknesses for decades. Yet, this matter that deserves
thoughtful analysis and repair is instead the province of those
who exploit it for political gain.

Can we help our federal government serves
us better? The answer partly lies in improved oversight. Unfortunately,
government is so large, even a perfect Congress couldn't monitor
it all.

A modest suggestion. If Congress were
to adopt biennial budgeting - i.e., adopt a two-year budget
every other year instead of one-year budgets every year - it
could spend half its time scrutinizing federal programs and considering
how to improve any that are ailing. It would have more time to
consider how to modernize Medicare while saving it from insolvency;
to scrutinize the federal procurement process and to improve
departments that help keep us safe in a dangerous world.

Such a reform would not necessarily turn
our federal government into a lean, mean, public-serving machine,
but it would at least be a positive, bipartisan step in the right
direction.

# # #

-Amy Ridenour is president of
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Footnotes:

1 Frank Newport, "Military,
Police Top Gallup's Annual Confidence in Institutions Poll: Little
Change in Confidence In Newspapers; Church Enjoys Modest Rebound
in Confidence," Gallup News Service, The Gallup Organization,
Washington, D.C., June 19, 2003, available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030619.asp
as of June 19, 2003.

2 Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., "The Medicare Drug Bill: An Impending
Disaster for all Americans," WebMemo #293, The Heritage
Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 13, 2003, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm293.cfm
as of June 19, 2003.

3 Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., "What's Wrong with the Senate
Drug Bill," WebMemo #297, The Heritage Foundation, Washington,
D.C., June 18, 2003, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm297.cfm#_ftn4
as of June 19, 2003.

4 Ibid.

5 John Surrat, "Northrop Grumman Awarded $15M Contract,"
Southeast Mississippi/Gulflive.com, May 2, 2003, available at
http://www.gulflive.com/mississippi/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1051870619237520.xml
as of June 18, 2003.

6 Bruce Alpert and Bill Walsh, "On the Hill: News From the
Louisiana Delegation in the Nation's Capital," New Orleans
Times-Picayune, June 15, 2003, available at http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1055657393325730.xml
as of June 18, 2003.